The publicly available part of the AMA's Model Aviation Magazine had two blurbs about the current status of the NPRM:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The President's Perspective Column

The FAA Saga Continues
The saga of the FAA continues. I certainly can say that the past month
has provided little, if any, positive comment. It is becoming apparent that
the FAA interpretation of the recent Congressional Act is not the same as
that of the Academy.

We have problems and every member of the Academy should realize this.
One of the issues is the proliferation of the Notices to Airmen/Temporary
Flight Restrictions (NOTAM/TFR). We recognize this and have attempted
to rectify it, but comments to the government have fallen on deaf ears.
We will continue our efforts but everyone should be aware that the
upcoming presidential elections will certainly generate concerns with more
NOTAM/TFRs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMA in Action Column

Will FAA’s proposed rules still require regulations for AMA?

On February 14, President Barack Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which is now Public Law 112-95. Contained in this law is language that instructs the FAA Administrator not to enact rules affecting model aircraft activity conducted within the safety programming of a nationwide, community-based organization.

This provision has generated a fair amount of discussion as to what is meant by the term “community-based organization.” In the joint legislative Conference Committee’s report, contained within the bill, a nationwide, community-based organization is described as:

“… a membership based association
that represents the aeromodeling
community within the United States;
provides its members a comprehensive
set of safety guidelines that underscores
safe aeromodeling operations within
the National Airspace System and the
protection and safety of the general public
on the ground; develops and maintains
mutually supportive programming with
educational institutions, government
entities and other aviation associations;
and acts as a liaison with government
agencies as an advocate for its members.”

There is no doubt the AMA meets this description. Congress’s recognition of community-based safety programming as an effective means of managing the aeromodeling activity is largely because of the excellent safety record achieved by AMA’s 75-year program of voluntary compliance with a simple and comprehensible AMA Safety Code.

Congress’s confidence in community-based safety programming is not necessarily shared by the FAA. Early discussions with representatives of the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO) regarding the bill suggest their continued belief that regulation is necessary to manage the threat FAA perceives model aircraft pose to the national airspace, and their intent to regulate model aviation in accordance with the responsibility and authority granted the agency under Title 49 of the US Code. AMA continues to pursue this issue and will do everything in its power to ensure that the model aviation provision in Public Law 112-95 is enacted and the congressional intent behind the law is adhered to.

I can’t stress enough how important it is that AMA members continue to validate the strength and effectiveness of our community-based program through unwavering compliance with
the AMA Safety Code and related programs. Please ensure that all of your aeromodeling activities are in compliance with the AMA Safety Code and are conducted as safely as possible.
Ensure that your fellow modelers are aware of relevant safety criteria and bring any unaddressed safety concerns to the attention of your club safety officer or flying site authority.

The question of the day continues to be: “When will FAA’s proposed small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) rule be released for public comment?” The best answer we’ve gotten from
FAA’s UAPO is that it’s anybody’s guess. The April 2012 report on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s website still lists July 23, 2012, as the projected publication date; however,
there is no clear indication that the rule has been sent to the Office of Management and Budget, which is the last stop in the review process. Individuals close to the process indicate there is a push to get the rule out by the end of June, while others speculate it could be held until after the presidential election.

In any case, the sUAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) remains on the horizon and is still a significant issue for the modeling community. Make sure everyone you know is aware of
the impending regulation, and ensure everyone who shares our love for this hobby is well informed and participates in the response to the proposed sUAS rule when the NPRM is published. Timely updates regarding the sUAS rulemaking can also be found on Facebook by “Liking” ‘AMAGov,’ and on Twitter at <Twitter.com/AMAGov>.

Become an AMA member or don't fly. I can forsee this creating a means for the Government to force U.S. aeromodelers to registar their models, maybe create n FAA based test and issue a license for model planes, atax? an list can go on, just another way for the Government to suck money out of tax payers.
I am an AMA member and think the AMA has done some good in the model airplane arena but I also see AMA having their way with modelers since they are the only organization that meets the "community based" criteria.

Anyhow, I ahve been playing around with the Eagle Tree elogger and GPS. Any suggestions for software setup parameters? My curiousity is with speed, altitude. Not a lot but enough for now. I do think the Google earth overlay is cool but that seems a little difficult even though it may be easy.

Ordered some more sensors for the ET system. I can conduct the experments that I wanted to years ago.
I was thinking about radio frequencies and wondered if 72mhz would be better for model control since a higher gain antenna could be used at the transmitter. Would be less interference since the majority of RCs have switched to 2.4ghz.
Now my question can receiver fail safe be used to trigger RTH.

Ordered some more sensors for the ET system. I can conduct the experments that I wanted to years ago.
I was thinking about radio frequencies and wondered if 72mhz would be better for model control since a higher gain antenna could be used at the transmitter. Would be less interference since the majority of RCs have switched to 2.4ghz.
Now my question can receiver fail safe be used to trigger RTH.

PROACE,

72 Mhz will give you extended control, but nothing compared to 433 Mhz

As far as I know, all the existing 433Mhz long range systems are digital spread spectrum just like standard 2.4 Ghz radios and generally transmit 500-800mW max. The chances of interfering with other ham operators when transmitting at that low a power level for only a brief instant on any given frequency is extremely low.

As far as I know, all the existing 433Mhz long range systems are digital spread spectrum just like standard 2.4 Ghz radios and generally transmit 500-800mW max. The chances of interfering with other ham operators when transmitting at that low a power level for only a brief instant on any given frequency is extremely low.

Hopping, but not really spread spectrum. There isn't enough bandwidth in the band
to do true spread spectrum. A typical 2.4Ghz RC signal spreads roughly 5Khz worth of control
signal about 200x so the channel is spread over 1Mhz or more, then it hops through anywhere
from 2 to 80 channels. The whole ISM band we use is only like 1Mhz wide.

Just would suck to have FCC jumping on the bandwagon with the FAA. We wouldn't have a chance then.

If you have a HAM ticket, and use ham legal frequencies, then you should be fine
with the FCC. I was just pointing out that our UHF control systems really aren't
the same as 2.4Ghz RC systems. They have meets with 300+ 2.4Ghz systems
operating at once. True spread spectrum allows the Rx to hear the Tx's signal below
the noise floor. I think you'd be lucky to get 5-10 UHF control systems to play nice
with each other at once.